Euthanasia death approved at a coffee shop.

Declaring a person to be dead, when he was not dead.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr James MacLean is one of the few doctors to be sanctioned for unprofessional conduct related to his euthanasia deaths. One of the complaints included a euthanasia assessment that was done at a Tim Horton's coffee shop.

An article by Brian Williams and Sharon Kirkey published by the London Free Press on May 27, 2026 explained that the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal received two complaints about MacLean, but only gave him a minor sanction for his actions related to his euthanasia deaths. The CPSO stated:

“The measures include mandatory clinical supervision for a minimum of six months, frequent supervision meetings, ongoing review of his MAID patient charts, regular written reports to (the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario) from the clinical supervisor, and completion of mandatory professional education relating to MAID, consent, documentation, professional boundaries, and professional behaviour.”

The first complaint that included assessing the person for euthanasia at a Tim Horton's coffee shop. The authors reported:

MacLean conducted his assessment of the patient outside a coffee shop. The college panel found it concerning that MacLean discussed “sensitive MAID-related matters in an informal public setting,” according to the summary of the inquiries and complaints committee’s decision.

“In the committee’s view, this reflected a lack of the level of formality and care expected when assessing requests for MAID.”

The panel was also troubled by the “quantity and nature” of MacLean’s text exchanges with the patient, which included comments about the family’s views.

MacLean’s decision to drive the patient to the MAID provision location “raised concerns about professional boundaries.”

“Taken together, these actions created a risk that (MacLean’s) involvement could be perceived as influencing the patient,” the committee’s summary reads, especially given the patient-doctor power imbalance and the patient’s history of mental health and substance use issues.

The second case was a failed euthanasia death whereby MacLean declared he patient dead and left the person's home even though the patient was not dead. The authors reported:

The second complaint involved a cancer patient at end of life. The man had signed a “waiver of final consent” that allows people whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable to receive MAID, even if they lose capacity to give consent the moment before death.

Before the chosen date, the man lost capacity and was unresponsive. MacLean was called to the home.

He’d ordered a MAID medication kit, but it wasn’t ready when he arrived at the pharmacy. He went to the home with a kit he already had.

According to the college, MacLean administered a sedative follow by propofol, a drug used during surgery that, in high doses, puts people in a coma.

The final drug customarily used paralyzes the muscles. Deprived of oxygen, organs shut down, one by one, until the heart finally stops.

But MacLean was unable to find the neuromuscular-blocking drug in his kit.

Shortly after administering the propofol, and unable to hear a heartbeat, MacLean pronounced the patient dead, according to the college. After he left the house, “the patient resumed spontaneous breathing.”

MacLean returned, saw signs of cardiac and respiratory activity, administered more medication along with the paralyzing agent, “and again pronounced the patient’s death.”

According to the college committee, MacLean “advised that he believes the stress of the situation, including the last-minute and urgent request for his attendance and the substantial number of people present with significant tension amongst them, contributed to initial failed provision of MAID.”

The family complained about MacLean’s professionalism and communication.

Dr Ramona Coelho a London family physician and former member of the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario’s MAID death review committee. told the authors:

“What is striking is not only the seriousness of the concerns identified in these cases, but the limited regulatory response,”

“The level of scrutiny and accountability applied to MAID is inconsistent with how other serious medical procedures are regulated,”

Dr Coelho commented on the notion that Canada's euthanasia law operates well.

The federal government “frequently points to the absence of criminal findings or disciplinary action as evidence that the MAID system is functioning safely,” she added.

“Cases such as these, along with those documented (by the coroner’s MAID death review committee) confirm that important gaps in oversight and accountability remain.”

The Chief Coroner of Ontario established the Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee that published multiple reports underlining the concerns with the law. Even though that report found cases of people who had no actual medical condition or who died by euthanasia based on poverty or a lack of proper housing, none of those cases were then brought to the CPSO to determine if any sanctions should be applied to the doctors and nurse practitioners who caused those deaths.